Published: Friday, February 15, 2013 at 3:08 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 8:49 a.m.

DAYTONA BEACH -- During Saturday night's unofficial kickoff to the NASCAR season, much attention will be given to the new generation of stock cars, known by all as the “Gen 6.”

So before that new era begins, this seems like a good time to reflect on “Gen 5,” which was never called that, of course. It was known as the “Car of Tomorrow” by all involved, yet many of those folks also gave it very unflattering names.

Cussed from the start by purists and quite a few racers, the COT was eventually blamed for everything from NASCAR's stagnant audience numbers to the demise of the international economy. Its “kit car” feel and utter lack of personality sucked the last bit of life out of NASCAR's manufacturer identity. The Cookie Cutter Association of America should've sued for libel over the comparisons.

But before we move into the Gen 6 era, let's pause for some long-overdue and deserved praise for the COT. Overdue, deserved, yet rare praise. Ironically, as the last bit of dirt is thrown on its grave Saturday night, it's the COT's aversion to funerals that must be remembered and most appreciated.

“You have to remember the context of 2001,” says Gary Nelson, referring to Dale Earnhardt's death in the Daytona 500, which came after three NASCAR deaths the year before. “After the year we had in 2000, and with all that burned into my brain, my goal was, No. 1, to try to get a car safer.”

Nelson was NASCAR's competition director when Earnhardt was killed, and was therefore the conductor as the sanctioning body finally put its safety initiatives into overdrive. He had no shortage of good-intentioned suggestions.

“We spent a lot of time on this. We had ideas coming from every direction on how to make the sport safer,” he says. “The good ideas are in there; you just have to figure them out. We were trying to figure out what happened on Feb. 18, 2001.”

Eventually, that investigation strongly suggested that Earnhardt would've survived his headlong crash into the Turn 4 wall if his seatbelt restraint system hadn't torn. Next step: How to prevent such things from happening in the future.

The Car of Tomorrow became the final piece of a wide-angle solution, unveiled for full-time duty in 2007. Its safety advancements did its part in slowing sales at speedway-area florists in the years since.

In the initial Earnhardt aftermath, most folks thought the racing automobile should be the first area of concern, but when Nelson met with the leading experts in the field of auto safety, he was convinced otherwise.

“Dean Sicking, John Melvin, Jim Raddin – I think these are the three best guys in the country, all in one place, and I have this briefcase full of suggestions to make this sport safer,” recalls Nelson. “So I asked those three guys one day, ‘What do I work on? We have race tracks, we have race cars, we have occupants.' ”

The majority of resources, Nelson was told, should be spent on restraining the occupant of the race car as tightly as possible inside the cockpit – that led to advancements in seat technology and harnesses, but also to belated mandating of neck-restraint systems (the HANS Device became the standard). The bulk of the rest of the resources should be spent on lessening impact at the wall, which led to today's SAFER Barrier, also known as “soft walls.”

“At the end, they said, spend the last 10 percent on the car,” says Nelson, who laughs at the original thoughts that centered on bumpers.

“Just think about that turning point in the sport,” he says. “We (NASCAR) were out in the middle of the forest and there are trees everywhere, yet we're trying to figure out where the trees are. These three guys sat down and said, ‘Gary, here's what you have to work on.' It was the restraints, the walls and then the rest on the car.”

Naturally, there's no way of knowing such things, but looking at all of the massive wrecks we've seen in the 12 years since Daytona's “Black Sunday,” it's easy to suggest lives were saved. And given that, there's no way to know which of the three safety focuses – restraints, walls or the COT – played the biggest role. But this isn't debatable: When it comes to its chief charge, the COT succeeded.

“When it was retired it was a pretty good race car. When it first came out, it had a long way to go,” says veteran racer Mark Martin, who then gives an affirmative nod to the car's part in the safety revolution.

“That's what will be remembered,” says Martin.

Nelson shrugs off the criticisms and focuses on the job he was given at the time. But while he'll defend that record, rightfully, he's also a proponent of mechanical evolution and loves what he's seen of the Gen 6.

“I'm a fan of change; I like improvement. I'm good with it,” he says. “I believe the new car is a better car than that car. I believe the car that came out now looks great to me. And it's even a safer car. New things have been learned. It looks safer to me. It looks better to me, by far.

“Great looking wasn't at the top of my list. You know, there'll be a Gen 7, and there'll be a Gen 8 and a Gen 9. The goal posts move as the sport moves, but I'm very comfortable with the safety record of the Car of Tomorrow.”

<p><b>DAYTONA BEACH</b> -- During Saturday night's unofficial kickoff to the NASCAR season, much attention will be given to the new generation of stock cars, known by all as the “Gen 6.” <ep></p><p>So before that new era begins, this seems like a good time to reflect on “Gen 5,” which was never called that, of course. It was known as the “Car of Tomorrow” by all involved, yet many of those folks also gave it very unflattering names.<ep></p><p>Cussed from the start by purists and quite a few racers, the COT was eventually blamed for everything from NASCAR's stagnant audience numbers to the demise of the international economy. Its “kit car” feel and utter lack of personality sucked the last bit of life out of NASCAR's manufacturer identity. The Cookie Cutter Association of America should've sued for libel over the comparisons.<ep></p><p>But before we move into the Gen 6 era, let's pause for some long-overdue and deserved praise for the COT. Overdue, deserved, yet rare praise. Ironically, as the last bit of dirt is thrown on its grave Saturday night, it's the COT's aversion to funerals that must be remembered and most appreciated.<ep></p><p>“You have to remember the context of 2001,” says Gary Nelson, referring to Dale Earnhardt's death in the Daytona 500, which came after three NASCAR deaths the year before. “After the year we had in 2000, and with all that burned into my brain, my goal was, No. 1, to try to get a car safer.”<ep></p><p>Nelson was NASCAR's competition director when Earnhardt was killed, and was therefore the conductor as the sanctioning body finally put its safety initiatives into overdrive. He had no shortage of good-intentioned suggestions.<ep></p><p>“We spent a lot of time on this. We had ideas coming from every direction on how to make the sport safer,” he says. “The good ideas are in there; you just have to figure them out. We were trying to figure out what happened on Feb. 18, 2001.”<ep></p><p>Eventually, that investigation strongly suggested that Earnhardt would've survived his headlong crash into the Turn 4 wall if his seatbelt restraint system hadn't torn. Next step: How to prevent such things from happening in the future. <ep></p><p>The Car of Tomorrow became the final piece of a wide-angle solution, unveiled for full-time duty in 2007. Its safety advancements did its part in slowing sales at speedway-area florists in the years since. <ep></p><p>In the initial Earnhardt aftermath, most folks thought the racing automobile should be the first area of concern, but when Nelson met with the leading experts in the field of auto safety, he was convinced otherwise.<ep></p><p>“Dean Sicking, John Melvin, Jim Raddin – I think these are the three best guys in the country, all in one place, and I have this briefcase full of suggestions to make this sport safer,” recalls Nelson. “So I asked those three guys one day, 'What do I work on? We have race tracks, we have race cars, we have occupants.' ”</p><p>The majority of resources, Nelson was told, should be spent on restraining the occupant of the race car as tightly as possible inside the cockpit – that led to advancements in seat technology and harnesses, but also to belated mandating of neck-restraint systems (the HANS Device became the standard). The bulk of the rest of the resources should be spent on lessening impact at the wall, which led to today's SAFER Barrier, also known as “soft walls.”<ep></p><p>“At the end, they said, spend the last 10 percent on the car,” says Nelson, who laughs at the original thoughts that centered on bumpers. <ep></p><p>“Just think about that turning point in the sport,” he says. “We (NASCAR) were out in the middle of the forest and there are trees everywhere, yet we're trying to figure out <i>where the trees are</i>. These three guys sat down and said, 'Gary, here's what you have to work on.' It was the restraints, the walls and then the rest on the car.”</p><p>Naturally, there's no way of knowing such things, but looking at all of the massive wrecks we've seen in the 12 years since Daytona's “Black Sunday,” it's easy to suggest lives were saved. And given that, there's no way to know which of the three safety focuses – restraints, walls or the COT – played the biggest role. But this isn't debatable: When it comes to its chief charge, the COT succeeded.<ep></p><p>“When it was retired it was a pretty good race car. When it first came out, it had a long way to go,” says veteran racer Mark Martin, who then gives an affirmative nod to the car's part in the safety revolution. <ep></p><p>“That's what will be remembered,” says Martin.<ep></p><p>Nelson shrugs off the criticisms and focuses on the job he was given at the time. But while he'll defend that record, rightfully, he's also a proponent of mechanical evolution and loves what he's seen of the Gen 6.<ep></p><p>“I'm a fan of change; I like improvement. I'm good with it,” he says. “I believe the new car is a better car than that car. I believe the car that came out now looks great to me. And it's even a safer car. New things have been learned. It looks safer to me. It looks better to me, by far.</p><p>“<i>Great looking</i> wasn't at the top of my list. You know, there'll be a Gen 7, and there'll be a Gen 8 and a Gen 9. The goal posts move as the sport moves, but I'm very comfortable with the safety record of the Car of Tomorrow.”</p>